search_obsidian_memory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention result format (snippets vs full notes), limitations (e.g., scope of vault, recency, required setup), or error conditions. The agent lacks critical context about what a 'memory snippet' contains or how results are ordered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. Every word is functional with no redundancy. Achieves maximum conciseness while remaining clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite few parameters and no output schema, the description omits essential context: what a 'memory snippet' looks like, whether results are ranked by relevance, and prerequisites (e.g., must have configured Obsidian vault). This forces the agent to guess the tool's behavior and output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., 'Keywords or topic' and 'Maximum number of past note snippets'). Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it searches Roundtable session notes in Obsidian Vault for memory snippets. The verb 'searches' and resource are explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_to_obsidian (write) or run_roundtable (conversational).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes other tools but no contrast or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use this when you need specific facts, otherwise use route_prompt'). The agent must infer use case from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.